Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TheSaucepanMan
Eomer of the Rohirrim is well advised to decline Bęthberry's invitation to attempt a definition of "humour", but I will attempt a very rudimentary one. "Humour" is that which people find humorous. And the more people that find something humorous, the better the humour is.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man
Seriously though, that would be "good" humour as far as it's audience is concerned (in the sense that it would work well as humour for that audience). Open it up to a wider audience and it would not necessarily work so well. So it would not be as "good" as humour that had a broader appeal. It's all subjective, you see, and you can only get some kind of objective view when you judge it by reference to the breadth of its appeal. But doesn't that mean that the more popular the humour, the better it is? Perish the thought!  |
For shame,
SpM, even in jest, to employ the term under discussion in the definition. I would have thought better of a loyer, but then I guess that is your humour at work.
The problem with your suggestion that the only objective view is that determined by majority or mass appeal is that it grants this specious 'objectivity' to the tyranny of numbers. We accept the rule of the majority in democratic votes, but I don't think we assume it necessarily follows that we are often persuaded that the best party won.
The other problem is that aesthetic appreciation is often a matter of education. Not in the sense that high brow art must be beat into us, but in the sense that very often it takes one courageous artistic vision to suggest an idea which others cannot yet grasp. Slowly, though, they come round. After all, Tolkien's work was first derided by fellow academics because it flew in the face of the ruling style of the moment, modernism. But times change and his work is now generally regarded and the subject of university courses. Does this mean that at first Tolkien was a bad author, using bad humour? Or does it mean that in fact the general understanding of his art has changed.
I could as well name other writers who at first were vastly popular and well regarded, who have now fallen into the dust bin of history, ready to be recycled some day perhaps by some intrepid interpreter. Popularity is as fickle as teen heart throbs.
Minority interpreters do not have to fall in line with the majority. Nor should the majority brow beat the minority into submission. What they should do is listen to each other, and learn from each other, see where there is common ground and where there are differences of perspective. But to be told "You're in the wrong because more people agree with me", well, that amounts to plain ole bullying.
It seems to me that you take the subjectivity of humour and out of that argue that the most 'objective' approach is to accept that of the majority. I also argue that humour is subjective. Where I differ is that I think it is possible to consider some properties of art which create humour. Sometimes it is the daring inconsistency or unusual nature of the event, the implausibility, which draw out our laughter. (Here, bodily functions are easily seen as funnier than stolid, solemn mental gymnastics because they 'bring people down to earth'.)
Comedy, I think, is meant often to be a breaker of barriers (tension, false pride, arrogance, ignorance etc), bursting the balloon of pretension and self-blindness. (Heck, just look at what happened here with the various interpretations of the Death of Crystal Heart thread. ) Maybe comedy also is designed to show up the different perspectives which we all bring to bear on an event. Thus I think it is valuable to consider the context of Jackson's various bits of comedy. Is he asking us not to take Middle-earth seriously? Or take it just as a bit of a romp? Or is he just wanting to regale us with funny moments for the sheer fun of laughter? Did he simply want to make the most number of people laugh? Okay, I guess. But how does that sit with the other aspects of his movies? And since when is the filmaker's intention the final, absolute word?
I take your point about Lucas' and Speilberg's sentimentality. For me, the high point of Lucas' art was the original
Star Wars, possibly extended to the two sequels. Jar Jar Binks and a plethora of improbable aliens show me the fraying limits of his vision. It is by the measure of the first SW that I consider Jackson's movies, because his movies bring to my mind so clearly Lucas' finest achievements.